Saturday, May 07, 2005

The chief executive of the council and the head of childrens (and education) services have both apparently resigned - announced the day after the election.

I have been a constant critic of both of them. Indeed the dismal Torbay Council has been at the centre of my election campaign - is there any connection between their decision to go and the election result?

Undeniably the decision not to make this public before the election was a political one -so whether our campaign had any bearing on the resignations or not they obviously considered that a public announcement before polling day would have been good for our campaign.

What are the chances now of a repreive for Upton school?

3 comments:

Ruth Goncalves
said...

Interesting to say the least that the chief executive and head of childrens services have apparently resigned as you say the day after the election.There most certainly should be a reprieve for Upton St James School as it is laughable that the gentleman that started the whole sorry saga of proposed closure will not be there to see the proposal through if indeed it goes to the Schools Organisation Commitee a point that the lib dem council should consider when meeting on Tues 17th to decide the fate of the childrens education

THE QUESTION of Europe was hardly mentioned during the election campaign.The British public could, therefore, be forgiven for thinking that the roleof the EU in our lives was, if not negligible, then at least under control.

How wrong they would be. The European Parliament, voting at Strasbourg onWednesday, decided that millions of British workers had to abide by amaximum 48-hour working week. Failure to do so would result in ourGovernment being hauled up before the European courts and threatened withmassive financial punishment.

Welcome to the world of supra-national sovereignty.The fact that Europe was not an election issue, given the astonishing powerthe EU now has over us, begs various questions. The answers, though, wouldbe pretty depressing.

Labour did not want to talk about Europe because its record of capitulationto Brussels would horrify most voters. Its unequivocal support for theEuropean Constitution says all one needs to know about it's real regard forour sovereignty. Despite the imminence of a referendum on that constitution­ to be held in a year's time ­ the Conservative Party also chose to saynothing.

As the party that took Britain into the club in 1973 ­ with the then PrimeMinister, Edward Heath, deliberately misrepresenting the consequences ­ it,too, has a difficult track record. Also, in the 2001 election it went tothe other extreme and ran a campaign about Europe and little else, whichpartly explained the electoral disaster it suffered.

And the Lib Dems, with an approach to Europe even more extreme thanLabour's in the desire for federation, also realised that discretion wouldbe the better part of valour.

SacredAnd so, in this conspiracy of silence, profound issues about the vast andexpanding right of a foreign power to dictate to our country remainedundebated.

The truth is that the 48-hour week compromises one of the most sacredrelationships in our national life: the contract between boss and employee.It has always been a matter of mutual agreement what the terms andconditions of service in any job will be, and that includes the exactnature of an employee's working hours.

John Major won an opt-out in 1993 from the Working Time Directive thatwould have spelled the end of this freedom. Our European partners havealways resented this, because the lack of a working hours restriction gaveour firms a competitive advantage over those on the continent.

Now that the big European economies ­ notably France and Germany ­ arebasket cases with low growth, massive unemployment and falling shares ofexport markets, their anger with us is even more pronounced.

That explains why the European Parliament was so keen to bring us intoline. What is more embarrassing for the Government ­ which knows thedamage that would be done to our economy if the opt-out were revoked, with85 per cent of construction and transport firms saying it would make theirlives more difficult ­ is that the motion so was passed with the help ofLabour MEPs.

The EU not only seems oblivious to our needs, but also to the needs of thewhole of Europe. Enforcing such restrictive practices will further reduceEurope's competitiveness, which is already suffering from the effects offar more efficient economies in the Far East.

This proposal is but a token of the levels of damaging interfer­ence Europecan inflict upon member states. And it exemplifies the betrayal of theelectorate that was implicit in the main parties' decision to avoid debateon this issue.

GiganticAnd because, unlike most other European countries, Britain inevitably playsby the rules, the effect of this directive being implemented would bedevastating. Many firms would simply not be able to operate and would closebefore they went bankrupt. Unemployment would rise.

The cost of enforcement would also be gigantic.

High-minded talk by Labour MEPs and many trades unionists about improvingthe 'work-life balance' would look absurd when, for many, there was no workwith which to balance 'life'.

The Government has said it will fight the imposition of the directive, butwithout big allies among other governments, its hopes are by no meanscertain.

As is the case with our immigration policies, it will simply be a case ofour masters in Brussels telling British politicians to do as they are toldrather than allowing them the traditional power to act independently.

With the referendum on the constitution coming closer, this reminder of ourenslavement to Brussels could not have come at a worse time for aGovernment that wants that constitution imposed on our country.

There can be no pretence that it will put an end to this violation of whathave always been considered the sovereign rights of its peoples. The wholepoint of the exercise is to take even more areas of sovereignty (such asforeign affairs, for example) away from us and give them to Europe.

Of course, Mr Blair is hoping to avoid a referendum ­ something he willprobably be able to achieve if the French say 'Non' in their vote afortnight on Sunday.

However, he reckoned without the spectacularly corrupt proposal by the EU,debated yesterday, to seek to allow the French to cut the rate of VAT onone of their great national pastimes ­ eating in restaurants ­ from 19.6 to5.5 per cent. [emphasis added]

The news that this bribe was even being considered was enough to reversethe trend of 21 consecutive opinion polls, and put the 'Oui' vote six pointsahead almost overnight. Regardless of what happens in France, theconstitution looks set to be vetoed in Britain ­ it is hugely unpopular, asis the Prime Minister who is its chief advocate.

However, the removal of our opt-out on working hours would kill it stonedead, and would open up once more to scrutiny what we have already given upto the EU, and the nature of what we might lose next.

In the event of the EU letting us keep the opt-out ­ and that is by nomeans certain ­ it would only be in return for some massive surrender onanother front. That is how the EU works.

HandicapsThe fact is that, outside the euro, and less regulated than our neighbours,Britain is simply too economically successful for some of its partners, andso handicaps must be shackled on to us.

So it is no wonder that none of our leading politicians wants to remind usof their, and our, impotence in the face of our true rulers in Brussels.

And while it is typical that the Government should promise to fight to saveour rights, it will also be typical that the fight will end, one way or theother, in defeat for our best interests.

How appropriate it was, though, that this startling reminder of therelentless power Europe has over us should come so soon after we have goneto the polls. For unless we take radical steps to win some of that powerback, at the next election, there will be hardly any point in voting at all.